Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol. 2(9) pp. 1528-1537 September 2011
Available online@ http://www.interesjournals.org/ER
Copyright © 2011 International Research Journals
Full Length Research paper
The Effects of Planning and Proficiency on Language
Production of Writing Task Performance
*Roghayyeh Nariman-Jahan, Massoud Rahimpour
Tabriz University, University of Queensland
Accepted 07 September, 2011
Planning is an inseparable part of all spoken and written language use. That is, all speakers and writers
need to decide what to say and write and how to do it. Therefore, there is a need to study about
planning. Thus, the present study reports on an experiment in which two groups of 72 high and low EFL
proficiency learners of English performed two monologic production tasks with and without time for
planning. The first group with time for planning was required to plan for their performance for 10
minutes and take notes before they performed the tasks, whilst the participants in the second group
(without time for planning) began writing immediately and take time as long as they like. The
participants’ performances were then analyzed utilizing paired samples t-test. The results corroborated
that low-proficiency learners appear to benefit more from time for planning with respect to concept load
and fluency. On the other hand, high-proficiency learners were advantaged by planning without time
concerning concept load, fluency, complexity, and accuracy. The findings of the study may have
pedagogical implications for the fields of syllabus design, language teaching, language testing, and
teacher training bodies.
Key words: Task, Planning, Proficiency, Concept Load, Fluency, Complexity, Accuracy, Writing Performance
INTODUCTION
Over the last fifteen years, task planning has become a
burgeoning area of research within task-based language
learning. An accumulation of studies has converged to
conclusion that providing adult language learners with the
opportunity to plan before doing a task allows them to
produce discourse of higher quality in the second
language (Ortega, 2005). Indeed, these studies have
investigated learners with a very limited range of
proficiency. They have examined mainly intermediate
learners and post- beginners (e.g. Ellis, 1987),
intermediate learners (e.g. Ortega, 1995; cited in Ortega,
2005), pre- intermediate learners (e.g. Foster and
Skehan, 1996; Skehan and Foster, 1997), and early
intermediate learners (Mehnert, 1998). To the best of
author’s knowledge, that is, Ellis (2005, 2009) the study
by Wiggleworth (1998) is the only study that took
*Corresponding author Email: r_narimanJahan@yahoo.
proficiency into accounts. Thus, the present study
focuses on proficiency to show the role of proficiency in
any effect for planning.
Many studies have found that pre-task planning
significantly facilitates fluency in L2 oral production
(Crooks, 1989; Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998;
Ortega, 1999; Skehan and Foster (1999) Wiggleworth,
1997). Language complexity also increases for more
proficient learners (Wiggleworth, 1997) and with more
cognitively demanding tasks (Foster and Skehan, 1996).
When it comes to accuracy, however, the effects of pretask planning is less certain.
Although a number of studies have investigated the
effects of pretask planning, only few studies have
examined on-line planning (i.e. the planning that occurs
during a speech event) (Ellis and Yuan, 2004). Also, in
contrast to the number of studies that have investigated
the effects of planning on oral narratives, there have
been very few task- based studies of the effects of
planning on written tasks. Thus, the present study reports
on a study that was designed to shed light on the gaps in
Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour 1529
Rehearsal
Pre- task planning
Strategic
Planning
Pressured
Within- task planning
Unpressured
Figure 1: Principal Types of Planning
the previous research. It has the following objectives: 1)
to describe pre-task planning and on-line planning 2) to
illustrate the theoretical background to the study of
planning 3) to explain the effects of planning and
proficiency on aspects of language production namely
concept load, fluency, complexity, and accuracy on
written personal tasks.
Types of Planning
Figure 1 above distinguishes two principal types of taskbased planning- pre- task planning and within- task
planning. These are distinguished simply in terms of
when the planning takes place- either before the task is
performed or during its performance (Ellis, 2005: 3-4).
While pre- task planning and within- task planning (online planning) constitute distinctive types of planning they
should not be seen as mutually exclusive (Ellis, 2005).
Pre- task planning is further divided into rehearsal and
strategic planning. Rehearsal entails providing learners
with an opportunity to perform the task before the ‘main
performance’. In other words, it involves task repetition
with the first performance of the task viewed as a
preparation for subsequent performance. Strategic
planning entails learners preparing to perform the task by
considering the content they will need to encode and how
to express this content. In pre- task planning, the learners
have access to the actual task materials.
Within-task planning is defined as the kind of planning
which occurs during performance. It consists mainly of
process of conceptualization, lexico- grammatical
searches, and monitoring, all at the level of particular
utterances- that is, at the micro- rather than the macrolevel (Bygate and Samuda, 2005).
In accordance with Ellis (2005) within- task planning
can be differentiated according to the extent to which the
task performance is pressured or unpressured. This can
be achieved most easily by manipulating the time made
available to the learners for the on- line planning of what
to say/write in a task performance. Within- task planning
refers to the planning that takes place on- line, during as
opposed to before the performance of the task. Withintask can be ‘careful’ in the sense that the performers of
the task have ample opportunity to plan their productions
and make use of this opportunity to attend to the content
and/or expression of their performance. Alternatively, it
can be ‘pressured’ in the sense that performers are
required to produce text rapidly and thus have limited
opportunity to attend closely to content and/or expression
as they perform the task (Ellis and Yuan, 2005). In an
unpressured performance learners can engage in careful
on- line planning. In pressured performance learners will
need to engage in rapid planning.
Theoretical Background to the Study of Planning
Theoretical frameworks that have informed the study of
task planning in second language acquisition (SLA) can
be divided into three categories. These include 1)
Tarone’s (1983) account of stylistic variation, 2) models
of speech production and writing, 3) cognitive models of
L2 performance and language learning.
Tarone’s Theory of Stylistic Variation
Tarone’s theory draws heavily on Labov’s account of
stylistic variation in native speakers. Drawing on this
theory of intra- speaker variability, Tarone (1983)
proposed what she called the Capability Continuum for
L2 learners. This consists of a continuum of styles,
ranging from the ‘careful’ to the ‘vernacular’. Tarone
proposed two ways in which new forms can enter
interlanguage. In one way, forms originate in the learner’s
1530 Educ. Res.
Figure 2: Kellog's Model of Writing Processes. Adopted from Ellis and Yuan (2004).
vernacular style and then spread to the more careful style
over time. In other words, forms appear initially in
learner’s most careful style, manifest only when the
learner is paying close attention to speech production,
and then spread to the less formal styles where they
replace earlier, more cognitive forms.
Models of Speech Production and Writing
Since the present researcher is working on writing, the
researcher will just focus on models of writing because of
dearth of space which is Kellog's (1996) model of writing.
The model (See Figure 2 Above) distinguishes three
basic systems involved in text production. Each system
has two principle components or processes. Formulation
entails planning, during which the writer establishes goals
for the writing, thinks up ideas related to these goals, and
organizes these to facilitate action, and translating, when
the writer selects the lexical units and syntactic frames
needs to encode ideas generated through planning and
represents these linguistic units phonologically and
graphologically in readiness for execution. Execution
requires programming, where the output from translation
is covered into production schema for the appropriate
motor system involved (e.g., handwriting or typing), or
executing or the actual production of sentences.
Monitoring consists of reading, where the writer reads her
or his own text, and editing, where can occur both before
and after execution of a sentence and can involve
attending to micro aspects of the text such as linguistic
errors, macro aspects such as paragraph and text
organization, or both aspects. The extent to which a
writer is able to engage in monitoring depends in part on
whether the writer has the time to adopt a polished draft
strategy or is engaged in pressured text production.
Cognitive Models of L2 Performance and Learning
There are two conflicting theories regarding how mind
works while performing a task. The first and widely
accepted approach is Skehan’s (1998) cognitive
approach which is based on a distinction between a rulebased system and exemplar- based system. In the former
case, it is assumed what is learned. In the latter case,
exemplars, learning is interpreted as the accumulation of
chunks (also usually, in artificial languages, specific
repeated sequences of letters). Exemplar- based system
is “lexical in nature and includes both discrete lexical
items and ready- made formulaic chunks of language”
(Skehan, 1998). The rule- based system consists of
“abstract representations of the underlying patterns of
language” (Skehan: 53).
Skehan also (1998) distinguishes three aspects of
production; 1) fluency (i.e. the capacity of the learner to
mobilize his/her system to communicate in real time) 2)
complexity (i.e. the utilization of interlanguage structures
that are ‘cutting- edge’, elaborate and structured) and 3)
accuracy (i.e. the ability of the learner to perform in
accordance with target language norms). He suggests
that language users vary in extent to which they
emphasize fluency, complexity, and accuracy with some
tasks predisposing them to focus on fluency, others on
complexity, and yet others on accuracy.
The next theory was proposed by Robison (2001). He
draws on a multiple- resources view of processing- that
is, learners like native speakers, have capacity to attend
to more than one aspect of language at the same time.
According to this view, there is no trade-offs between
Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour 1531
fluency, accuracy, and complexity (at least these last
two), as Skehan claims.
Therefore, reviewing the related literature signifies the
importance of studies on the effects of planning on the
written performance of language learners. The studies in
this field shed lights upon the main concerns in language
teaching methodology, syllabus design, as well as
language testing particularly written examinations. For
that reason, the present study tries to investigate the
issues concerning planning through the following
questions generated through the review of related
literature:
1.
What effect does proficiency have on L2 learner's
performance of written personal task under planned vs.
unplanned conditions in terms of concept load?
2.
What effect does proficiency have on L2 learner's
performance of written personal task under planned vs.
unplanned conditions in terms of fluency?
3.
What effect does proficiency have on L2 learner's
performance of written personal task under planned vs.
unplanned conditions in terms of complexity?
4.
What effect does proficiency have on L2 learner's
performance of written personal task under planned vs.
unplanned conditions in terms of accuracy?
most of them had been learning English as a foreign
language in Iranian schools for 6 years, first in Junior
school and then in high school. They had little opportunity
to use English for communicative purposes outside the
classroom. They were told that the tasks were for
purposes of research only, and given that their teachers
were not involved in the data collection in any way. They
were informed that all findings would be confidential.
They were not told the precise purpose of the study and
were assured that the information collected would not
impact their course grades.
MATERIALS
Task was carried out by participants in dyads. The task
used was a personal task from Foster and Skehan
(1996). The task required participants to describe how to
get to her or his home from the college that participants
were attending and then to turn off a gas cooker that had
been left on. As it involved accessing information well
known to the speaker and possibly already rehearsed in
English, it was seen as requiring the least cognitive effort
and allowing the greatest attention to language form.
Moreover, it was reasoned that the nature of the task
would require relatively simple linguistic forms to be used.
Study
Design
Procedures
Language proficiency was between-participants variables
and each had two levels. Planning condition, which was
opertionalized through on-line planning and pre-task
planning, was a within-participant variable, i.e. the
participants performed the task in both on-line planning
and pre-task planning condition. In effect, the study
employed a “within subjects” design, in which learners
completed both the unplanned and planned tasks, rather
than a “between subjects” design, in which learners were
assigned to either an unplanned or planned task. By
using a “within subjects” design, language production
under both planning and no-planning conditions can be
compared to reveal differences between conditions more
clearly, as Kawauchi (2005) did.
After the participants and the materials were chosen, the
procedure commenced. Two of the four classes were
randomly assigned to either the unplanned or planned
conditions.
In this study, planning was operationalized at two
levels: pretask planning (PTP) and on- line planning
(OLP). The participants performed the tasks in their
normal classroom setting. Both their regular teacher and
the researcher were present.
In the pre- task planning condition, the participants
were requested to finish writing the story within 17
minutes and to produce at least 200 words. In this way,
the participants pressured to perform the task with limited
opportunities for on- line planning. The participants were
given 10 minutes to plan their performance of the task.
The choice of planning time is based on Foster and
Skehan (1996) and Ellis and Yuan (2004). Mehnert’s
(1998) study showed that only when at least a 10- minute
planning time was provided, there were measureable
effects on all three aspects of language use- fluency,
complexity, and accuracy- in the case of oral production.
No detailed guidance was provided, but the participants
were asked to plan their written task in terms of content,
organization, and language. This again followed the
Participants
Participants were 144 Iranian learners of English as a
foreign language in Tabriz University. They were both
high and low proficiency learners. They were divided into
high and low proficiency on the basis of accidental
sampling. They were all between 18 and 25 years old,
and all were both females and males. They were 48
males and 96 females. At the time of data collection,
1532 Educ. Res.
Table 1: Paired Samples Statistics for Comparing the Length of Time Spent on Tasks
Planning
Length of time (min.)
planned
Unplanned
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
72
72
21.4306
17.0000
2.80757
.00000
.33087
.00000
studies of Skehan and Foster (1996) and Ellis and Yuan
(2004). The participants were given a sheet of paper to
write notes but told not to write out the whole story. The
notes were taken away before they start the task
because removing the notes ensured that the language
elicited by the task was produced within the specified
time limit.
In on- line planning condition, the participants were
given a piece of paper and told to write down the story.
They were told they could take as long as they like, and a
researcher ensured that they began writing immediately.
The researcher noted the time the participants spend on
task to check that this is indeed longer than the time
taken by the other group. Unlike the other group,
however, the participants were not required to write a
minimum of 200 words, as this may have been
interpreted as requiring them to write quickly. Thus, the
participants in this condition were allocated no time for
pretask planning but ample time for on- line planning.
Measures of concept load, fluency, complexity, and
accuracy were developed to evaluate the quality of the
participants’ written production. Insofar as possible, these
measures were the same as those used in studies of oral
production (e.g., Foster and Skehan, 1996; Yuan and
Ellis, 2003). However, changes to the fluency measures
are needed to make them appropriate to written
production as temporal phenomena, such as length of
pauses, cannot be measured in writing. Thus, what
follows is a detailed description of how the written
samples were analyzed.
Concept load (Lexical Density or Type- Token Ratio) is
a measure of the ratio of different words to the total
number of words in a text. Concept load is normally
expressed as a percentage and is calculated by the
formula (Richards and Schmidt, 2002):
Lexical density =
However, regular Type- Token ratios are affected by
length; that is, it is easier to obtain a high type- token
ration in a short text than in a long one (Ellis and
Barkuizen, 2005). Thus, the present study used a
sophisticated type- token ratio, that is, word types per
square root of two times the words that take the length of
the sample into account (Nariman-Jahan, 2010;
Rahimpour and Nariman-Jahan, 2010; Rahimpour and
Nariman-Jahan, 2011). Fluency was measured by words
per T- units (Ishikawa, 2006; Kuiken and Vedder, 2007;
Nariman-Jahan, 2010). Regarding Syntactic complexity a
measure of the ratio of clauses to T- units was adopted
(Mehnert, 1998; Yuan and Ellis, 2003; Ellis and Yuan,
2004; Arnold, 2008; Wiggleworth and Storch, 2009;
Nariman-Jahan, 2010). To code accuracy, following the
previous studies of Rahimpour (1997, 2008), Errasti
(2003), Larsen- Freeman (2006), Arnold (2008), and
Nariman-Jahan (2010) it was operationalized as the
number of Error- free T-units per T- units i.e., the
percentage of T-units that do not contain any errors. All
errors in syntax, morphology, lexical choice, and spelling
errors were considered. Lexical errors are defined as
errors in lexical form or collocation (e.g., *I was writing
you). These measures were used for analysis because
these indices have been determined to be best measures
of second language development in writing (LarsenFreeman, 2006).
RESULTS
To establish that the two planning conditions worked as
anticipated, the length of time the participants in the two
groups spent on tasks was measured. In accordance with
the instructions given to the two groups, the OLP spent
longer on tasks than the other group as Table 1 shows.
Paired samples test in Table 2 showed that the difference
in time taken to complete the task across the groups was
statistically significant with the OLP group taking longer
than the other group.
In order to find out the effect of proficiency in
unplanned vs. planned conditions, series of pairedsamples t-test were used on each of the four dependent
variables. Table 3 presented a summary of the
descriptive statistics for all the measures for the low
proficiency learners. It provided the number of
participants, means, standard deviations, and standard
errors of mean of concept load, fluency, complexity, and
accuracy for low proficiency participants in unplanned vs.
planned conditions.
In order to answer the research questions, the linguistic
outcomes from the unplanned and planned performance
were compared. As can be seen in Table 3, the mean of
Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour 1533
Table 2: Paired Samples Test for Comparing the Length of Time Spent on Tasks
Planning
Length of time (min.)
planned- Unplanned
mean
4.43056
Paired Differences
Std. deviation Std. error mean
2.80757
.33087
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Concept
Unplanned vs. Planned Conditions
Measures
Planning
Concept Load Unplanned
planned
Fluency
Unplanned
planned
Complexity
Unplanned
planned
Accuracy
Unplanned
planned
N
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
t
13.39C
df
71
Sig. (2-tailed)
.00
Load, Fluency, Complexity, Accuracy under
Mean
5.004
5.0725
9.3650
9.7356
1.3236
1.3008
.6400
.5931
Std. Deviation
.52977
.68008
2.29879
2.52468
.23211
.18362
.15611
.18137
Std. Error Mean
.08829
.11335
.38313
.42078
.03869
.03060
.02602
.03023
Table 4: Paired Samples Test Results for Concept Load, Fluency, Complexity, Accuracy under Unplanned vs. Planned Conditions
Measures
Concept Load
Fluency
Complexity
Accuracy
Planning
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Mean
-.07111
Paired Differences
Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
.72739
.12123
-37056
2.22767
.02278
.22154
.37128
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed
-.587
35
.561
-0998
35
.325
.617
35
.541
1.476
35
.149
.03692
.04694
.19079
concept load (X=5.0725) and the mean of fluency
(X=9.7356) were higher under planned condition than the
mean concept load (X=5.0014) and the mean of fluency
(X=9.3650) under unplanned condition. However, the
mean of complexity (X=1.3236) and the mean of
accuracy (X=0.6400) were higher under unplanned
condition than the mean of complexity (X=1.3008) and
the mean of accuracy (X=0.5931) under planned
condition.
In order to make these conclusions more justifiable, the
results were compared using paired samples test. The
results of paired samples test in Table 4 demonstrated
that none of the measures yielded significance difference.
In other words, although half of the measures favored
.03180
planned over unplanned conditions, they were not
significant.
Table 5 displayed a summary of the descriptive
statistics for all the measures for the high proficiency
learners. It provided the number of participants, means,
standard deviations, and standard errors of mean of
concept load, fluency, complexity, and accuracy for high
proficiency participants in unplanned vs. planned
conditions. As Table 5 showed, the means of concept
load (X=4.6581), complexity (X=1.2258), and accuracy
(X=0.7306) were higher under unplanned conditions than
the means of concept load (X=4.6044), complexity
(X=1.2111) and the mean of accuracy (X=0.7083) under
planned conditions.
1534 Educ. Res.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Concept Load, Fluency, Complexity, Accuracy
Measures
Planning
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Concept Load
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
4.6584
4.6044
8.5142
8.5142
8.3050
1.2111
.7306
.7083
.58031
.73900
1.99048
1.85124
.18592
.16131
.16881
.16312
.09672
.12317
.33175
.30854
.03099
.02689
.02814
.02719
Fluency
Planned
Complexity
Planned
Accuracy
Planned
Unplanned
Unplanned
Table 6: Paired Samples Test Results for Concept Load, Fluency, Complexity, Accuracy under
Measures
Concept Load
Fluency
Complexity
Accuracy
Planning
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Unplanned
planned
Mean
.05361
Paired Differences
Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
.56772
.09462
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed
.567
35
.571
.20917
2.18807
.36468
.574
35
.570
.01472
.19441
.03240
.454
35
.652
.02222
.13892
.02315
.960
35
.344
The results of paired samples test in Table 6 depicted
that although none of the measures yielded significance
difference, they reached almost significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The results provide a support for the hypothesis
concerning concept load with a significant advantage for
low proficiency learners. That is, low proficiency learners
produced more concept load under planned condition.
However, high proficiency learners did not differ
significantly in the unplanned and planned conditions.
This indicates that pretask planning does not facilitate the
use of subordination for high proficiency learners. These
findings are reliable with the findings of the research by
Ortega (1999), Wigglesworth (199), and Kawauchi
(2005). This finding is likely due to fact that different
levels of proficiency candidates undertake different
activities during planning time and focus on the different
requirements of the task. As Wigglesworth (1997)
suggested the high proficiency candidates may focus on
the form and complexity of their linguistic output, while
the low proficiency candidates may focus on content.
Thus, in this study, the low proficiency learners may use
planning time to focus on content of their linguistic output
which in turn gives rise to more concept load
performance.
Reported findings corroborate the alternative
hypothesis regarding fluency. That is, proficiency had an
effect on the fluency of language production under
planned condition which is along the lines of the findings
of the research by Ortega (1999), Wigglesworth (1997),
Kawauchi (2005), and Tavakoli and Skehan (2005). In
fact, the low proficiency learners produced more fluent
performance under planned condition but the high
proficiency learners produced more fluent performance
under unplanned condition. This is because the low
proficiency learners, as pointed out before, employed
planning time to focus on the content and this brings
about enhanced fluency.
With regard to complexity, the results reported provide
partial confirmation for this hypothesis. The findings of
Wigglesworth (1997) indicated that the planning time only
helped the more highly proficient learners to produce
more complex language. The opportunity to plan did not
Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour 1535
seem to benefit learners at lower levels of proficiency. In
this case, the findings of the present study are held up.
That is, low proficiency learners produced less complex
language under planned condition. Nonetheless, the
result of the present study runs counter with Tavakoli and
Skehan (2005) in the case of high proficiency learners.
The reason may be that individual differences obscure
the result of this study with reference to complexity.
What’s more, it may be due to the task implementation,
that is, the way in which a task is performed. Tavakloi
and Skehan performed the tasks in testing situations
whereas the tasks in this study were performed in a
normal classroom situation. Also, it may be due to the
nature of tasks. Besides, planning condition (Foster and
Skehan, 1996; Ellis, 2004; Elder and Iwashita, 2005; Ellis
and Yuan, 2005; Kawauchi, 2005), individual differences
(Wigglesworth, 1997; Ortega, 2005), and task type
(Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Robinson,
2001; Elder and Iwashita, 2005; Tavakoli and Skehan,
2005; Taguchi, 2007; and Rahimpour, 2007) may
influence task performances.
Wigglesworth's (1997) claim that “for the high
proficiency candidates, planning time may improve
accuracy on some measures where the cognitive load of
the task is high, but this effect does not extend to the low
proficiency candidates (p.85)”. Thus, the findings of the
present study is sustained with this claim since personal
task was an easy task according to Skehan and Foster
(1997), high proficiency learners could not produce more
accurate performance under planned condition.
Thus, the results of this study offer further evidence for
influence of planning on the written performance of L2
learners. As maintained by Yuan and Ellis (2003),
teachers need to prepare learners to communicate by
developing their linguistic capacity to communicate. One
way of contributing to this goal is to ensure that there is
“balanced goal development” (Skehan, 1998). That is,
teachers need to ensure that learners’ capacity to use the
L2 is balanced with regard to the three aspects of
language-fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Skehan
suggested that this balance “can best be handled simply
by manipulating the time available for planning” (p.140).
However, Skehan’s comments relate exclusively to pretask planning. Yuan and Ellis (2003) suggested that
manipulating opportunities for both pre-task planning and
on-line planning may be needed. Thus, the findings of the
study make it possible for a teacher or more
outstandingly for a syllabus designer to design
sequences of instructional activities that alternate
attention to each of the areas so that the goal of balanced
development can be obtained.
It also suggests that pre-task and on-line planning have
somewhat different effects. This has important
implications for both writing pedagogy and testing. That
is, teachers may be able to manipulate the aspects of the
writing (fluency, complexity, and accuracy) that L2 writers
attend by varying the task conditions to allow sometimes
for pre-task planning, sometimes for on-line planning, and
sometimes for both. As a final point, testers who wish to
enable L2 writers to present their best products for
assessment may need to ensure that opportunities for
both types of planning are available to testees (Ellis and
Yuan, 2004).
REFERNCES
Arnold E (2008). Measurements and perceptions of writing
development: Omani academic writers in English. Indonesian J.
English Lang. Teaching. 4 (1): 42- 55.
Bygate M, Samuda V (2005). Integrative planning through the use of
task repetition. In Ellis, R. Planning and task performance in a second
language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Crookes G (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 11: 367-383.
Elder C, Iwashita N (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make
a difference. In Ellis, R. Planning and task performance in a second
language (pp. 219-237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Ellis R (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style
shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 9: 1-20.
Ellis R (2004). Task- based language learning and teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University press.
Ellis R (2005). Planning and task- based performance: Theory and
research. In Ellis, R. Planning and task performance in a second
language (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Ellis R (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on
the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Appl.
Linguistics.30 (4): 474-509.
Ellis R, Barkhuizen G (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis R, Yuan F (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity,
and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 26: 59- 84.
Ellis R, Yuan F (2005). The effects of careful within- task planning on
oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R. Planning and task
performance in a second language (pp.167-192). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Errasti MPS (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The
positive effects of bilingualism. Int. J. Bilingualism. 7 (1): 27- 42.
Foster P, Skehan P (1996). The influence of planning and task type on
second language performance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 18: 299- 323.
Ishikawa T (2006). The effects of task complexity and language
proficiency on task- based language performance. The J. Asia TEFL.
3 (4): 193- 225.
Kawauchi C (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral
narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency.
In Ellis, R. Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.
143-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kuiken F, Vedder I (2007). Cognitive task complexity and written output
in Italian and French as a Foreign language. J. Second Lang. Writing.
17(1): 48-60.
Larsen- Freeman D (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and
accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of
English. Appl. Linguistics. 27 (4): 590- 619.
Mehnert U (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning
on second language performance. Studies in Second Language
1536 Educ. Res.
Acquisition. 20: 52-83.
Nariman-Jahan R (2010). The effects of planning and self-efficacy on
EFL learner‘s written performance. Unpublished M.A thesis, The
University of Tabriz, Iran.
Ortega L (1999). Planning and focus on Form in L2 oral performance.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21: 108- 148.
Ortega L (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to
form during pretask planning. In Ellis, R. Planning and task
performance in a second language (77- 109). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rahimpour M (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in
L2 oral discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of
Queensland, Australia.
Rahimpour M (2007). Task complexity and variation in L2 learner’s oral
discourse. Linguistics Working Papers, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Rahimpour M (2008). Implementation of task- based approaches to
language teaching. Research on Foreign Languages J. Faculty of
Letters and Humanities. 41: 45- 61.
Rahimpour M, Nariman-Jahan R (2010). The influence of self-efficacy
and proficiency on EFL learners’ writing. Int. J. Instructional Technol.
and Distance Learning. 7 (11): 19- 35.
Rahimpour M, Nariman-Jahan R (2011). The effects of planning on
writing narrative task performance with low and high EFL proficiency.
English Lang. Teaching. 4 (1): 120- 127.
Richards C, Schmidt R (2002). Longman dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Robinson P (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production:
Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Appl. Linguistics.
22 (1): 27- 57.
Skehan P (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Skehan P, Foster P (1997). Task type and task processing conditions
as influences on foreign language performance. Lang. Teaching
Res.1: 185- 211.
Skehan P, Foster P (1999). The influence of task structure and
processing conditions on narrative retellings. Lang. Learning. 49: 93120.
Skehan P, Foster P (2005). The influence of surprise information and
task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R. Planning and
task performance in a second language (pp.193-216). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Taguchi N (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Appl.
Linguistics. 28 (1): 113-135.
Tarone E (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Lang.
Learning. 4: 143- 62.
Tavakoli P, Skehan P (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and
performance testing. In Ellis, R. Planning and task performance in a
second language (pp.239-273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Wiggleworth G (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency
level on oral test discourse. Lang. Testing. 14(1): 85-106.
Wiggleworth G, Storch N (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects
on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Lang. Testing. 26 (3): 445–466.
Yuan F, Ellis R (2003). The effects of pretask planning and on- line
planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral
production. Appl. Linguistics. 24: 1-27.
Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour 1537
APPENDIX A: Task Given to the Participants in Each
Class
Personal Task
Sending Somebody Back to Turn off the Oven!!
In the afternoon, you are at school, and you have an
important examination in fifteen minutes. You suddenly
think that you haven’t turned off the oven after cooking
your lunch. There is no time for you to go home.
Explain to a friend who wants to help:
How to get to your house
How to get into the house and get to the kitchen
How to turn off the oven off